Cessna Meat Supplies CC v Maschwitz t/a Edenglen Butchery (19595 / 2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 601 (2 November 2021)

Cessna Meat Supplies CC v Maschwitz t/a Edenglen Butchery (19595 / 2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 601 (2 November 2021)

The court found that the defendant's exception was not sustainable on either ground. The particulars of claim were not vague and embarrassing as a whole, and the defendant's inability to reconcile figures did not amount to a failure to disclose a cause of action. The defendant improperly raised new grounds of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 601
Parties
Plaintiff: Cessna Meat Supplies CC; Defendant: Gerhard Maschwitz t/a Edenglen Butchery
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2021
Case Number
19595 / 2020
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
N. Ali
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Cause of Action, Attorney Right of Appearance
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Cause of Action Attorney Right of Appearance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cessna Meat Supplies CC

Plaintiff

Gerhard Maschwitz t/a Edenglen Butchery

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and/or fail to disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the exception was properly signed in accordance with procedural requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's grounds of exception in the heads of argument were properly raised in the notice of exception.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's exception was not sustainable on either ground. The particulars of claim were not vague and embarrassing as a whole, and the defendant's inability to reconcile figures did not amount to a failure to disclose a cause of action. The defendant improperly raised new grounds of exception in the heads of argument, which were not present in the notice of exception and thus could not be considered. The exception was also procedurally defective due to the attorney's failure to sign in the required capacity. The court dismissed the exception and awarded costs on a punitive scale due to the procedural irregularity.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The excipient/defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on an attorney and client scale.